2. speakers
  3. 1231139823

What's next for the ultimate sound quality?

The question may be naive, but I'm not sure what's next to try in the quest for the ultimate sound. I owned the entry level magnepans mmg (didn't like them much for anything but jazz), monitor audio S6 (good all around, imho, but nothing spectacular except for the cheap price tag). Lately I built speakers myself that should supposedly rival the best in the world (ZRT 2.5 from Zaph Audio with Scanspeak drivers)

(design):
http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZRT.html

actual speakers:
http://picasaweb.google.com/grybkin/ZRTSpeakers

The question is what's next? These speakers use one of the best drivers in the world and the best I've heard to date with excellent bass and accurate sound, but soundstage and imaging could be improved (magnepans are better). Also, the sound is a little thin. Am I asking too much, though, from 2 wooden boxes with paper diaphragms in the middle? The speakers are built precisely up to spec and I'm pretty sure that's the way they should sound.

Have I reached the limit where the speakers should be left alone and improving other components can make better returns; e.g, room acoustics and/or amplifier not to mention using quality recordings?

P.S. The receiver I'm currently using is Panasonic SA57 connected to a computer via digital COAX cable and JULI@ sound card. Despite the cheap price, this receiver is great, imho, and sounds better than my NAD 754 (probably because Panasonic is on the bright side and the speakers are warm, so it pairs with them better).

Thanks!
Gleb.
asdf777

Showing 7 responses by asdf777

asdf777 OP
7 posts
 
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of experience with different speakers to compare them with. The best I've heard to date (besides these ones) were monitor audio gold reference 60 ($3K retail). ZRT speakers are a *little* better imho -- they have more airy highs and deeper bass (probably due to silk/paper drivers vs metal ones in MAs). At the same time, it feels like continuation of the same sound -- nothing radically different. Not sure if shelling out $2,500 for a Krell receiver would change the sound much... Or will it? Is it a warm receiver? I feel like these speakers need something bright and pushy. (Which is what Panasonic SA57 is)

Basically, my only problem with these speakers is that when I close my eyes, they don't disappear and sound a little thin -- I'd like to hear a wall of powerful and clean sound but still not there yet... Can the thin sound be due to poor room acoustics -- all the walls and floor are flat and there must be a ton of reflections?

Thanks for your comments, btw!
asdf777 OP
7 posts
 
BTW, the receiver may look dorky and cost less than some of your cables, but it sounds quite amazing: it beats my NAD 754 quite easily in the extended bass range and definition and If you look at this thread down below, there is a post that compares it with sunfire ultimate http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/1/239777.html
asdf777 OP
7 posts
 
Interesting. Tube amp? Never even considered them... To be honest, I thought tube amps were kind of in line with power conditioners and gold cables (i.e., look cool and audiophile, but not really add anything besides design value :) Can they really beat modern all digital receivers? It would be interesting to try, though.

Does anybody know of an audio show in the Chicago area where companies bring hi end equipment? It would be a great experience to attend one of those to at least look at what's out there.
asdf777 OP
7 posts
 
Shadorne, you got it! The sound is indeed clean, detailed and punchy and slightly damped.

Given my ideal sound description (a wall of clean and powerful sound), I've got clean and powerful, but the "wall" is missing.

Is tube amp the right answer? There seem to be a lot of DIY designs for tube amps. Or should the room acoustics be dealt with first? Thanks!
asdf777 OP
7 posts
 
S7horton,

Right, I'm quite a newbie and haven't had a lot of opportunity to experiment. In fact, very little. Before building these speakers, and having listened to Seas drivers for 3-4 years (in monitor audio speakers), I bought drivers from Aurum Cantus, Bohlender Graebener and Scanspeak (for reference planning to return them later). After auditioning, the scanspeak tweeter came so on top that I really decided to build a reference system and not waste time and money on everything in between. In terms of amplifiers/receivers, Panasonic and NAD are the only ones I've got and Panasonic sounds better with these speakers. NAD was wonderful with Magnepans.

In terms of "thin", English is not my native language, so this may be a confusion on my part. "Damped" may be a better description. If I put studio headphones to compare the sound (I have AKG 271), it's pretty much the same except that with the headphones, it feels like there are more instruments playing (thin, damped?) and the speakers have more realistic bass and highs.

P.S. How does one experiment with amplifiers/receivers anyway? Do you buy a receiver and return it if you don't like it? Or bring your speakers to the dealer?
asdf777 OP
7 posts
 
Right. So the consensus seems to be to leave the speakers be and upgrade amplification + install sound panels.

If tube amplifiers sound as cool as they look, then I'm sold :) It also seems possible to build one yourself and stick to the DIY philosophy. I'm afraid the richness of sound also means "warmness", no? In this case, tube amps may not be the best match for the warm scanspeak drivers. I'm going to try a tube amp anyway. Also, browsing a little online about Krell 400xi, it seems that it's kind of bright, revealing and aggressive, which is exactly what these drivers need imho. Definitely something to try!

So many thanks, everybody!
asdf777 OP
7 posts
 
The system sensitivity is around 92-93db. The tweeter is 92.5 and woofer is 87, but since there are 2 of them wired in parallel facing the same direction, you get +6db = 93db for the woofers as well.
More to discover